State v. Smith, 2017 Ohio 8680

Keith M. Smith was indicted on seven counts of pandering sexually oriented material involving a minor (initially four second-degree and three fourth-degree felonies); he ultimately pleaded guilty to seven fourth-degree counts after the State amended the charges.
The charges arose from pornographic videos involving minors found on computers in Smith’s home; Smith disputed that he downloaded the material, contending someone else did.
Smith moved to withdraw an earlier no-contest plea; the court allowed withdrawal and he later entered a guilty plea (including the possibility of an Alford-type factual basis).
The trial court sentenced Smith to 18 months on each count, ordering two counts to run consecutively and the rest concurrently, for a total of 36 months in prison.
Smith appealed, raising five assignments of error: invalid guilty plea, unconstitutional sentence based on refusal to accept responsibility, improper consecutive-sentence findings, unconstitutional multiple punishments/merger, and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Smith)	Held
Validity of guilty plea (due process)	The plea was supported by a strong factual basis; statute covers possession/control, not just downloading.	Smith claims plea was not knowing/voluntary because he maintained he did not download the videos.	Court: Plea valid; record shows factual basis and plea was knowing/voluntary (Alford principle applies).
Sentence imposed because of refusal to accept responsibility	Court may consider lack of acceptance at sentencing.	Smith contends prison was imposed due to his refusal to accept responsibility, violating rights.	Court: Argument inadequately preserved; no developed plain-error claim; overruled.
Consecutive sentence findings under R.C. 2929.14(C)(4)	Trial court made statutory findings (course of conduct; harm so great/unusual; protection of public).	Smith argues inadequate judicial consideration and need for explained reasoning.	Court: Findings satisfied; court need only state findings and incorporate into entry; record supports findings.
Merger/multiple punishments	State treated counts separately.	Smith contends sentences should have merged to avoid multiple punishments.	Court: Argument undeveloped; no relief—assignment overruled.
Ineffective assistance for not raising merger	State: counsel performance was not shown to be ineffective.	Smith: counsel failed to raise merger, citing Strickland.	Court: Claim undeveloped and not applied to Strickland standard; overruled.

North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 (1970) (defendant may plead guilty while asserting innocence if strong factual basis exists)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (two-prong ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard)
State v. Griggs, 103 Ohio St.3d 85 (2004) (discussing Alford pleas in Ohio)
State v. Foster, 109 Ohio St.3d 1 (2006) (sentencing court's obligations after judicial-factfinding changes)
State v. Bonnell, 140 Ohio St.3d 209 (2014) (trial court must state statutory findings for consecutive sentences and incorporate them into entry)